WTO架構下公共道德及公共秩序例外之探討：共通適用準則之建立

Abstract

1990年晚期起，公共道德及公共秩序例外開始引起學術界及國際組織的注意。可惜的是，即使各國為維持其社會價值的獨特性而有公共道德及公共秩序例外可資主張，但模糊條文用語卻使各國無法成功正當化該國之管制措施。儘管例外的範圍及意義仍未有明確定義，各國仍試著以例外條款來正當化管制進出口之措施。更進一步，越來越多的國家也開始利用諸如文化保護、人道考量作為理由來限制貿易。因此，我們是否應放寬公共道德及公共秩序的認定而利用該等貿易限制措施來達到保護目的？ 然而，自由貿易與公共道德及公共秩序之例外卻存在於一種極為敏感的平衡面向上，一方面，國際貿易制度乃是立基於「非歧視待遇」，在此之下，可能會產生一國無法主張該國特殊人文風情或宗教信仰。另一方面，若國際貿易措施違反一國之公共道德或對一國之公共秩序產生威脅時，也難期待該會員國之國民接受該貿易政策。如何在其中找出平衡點？ WTO為現今最大之國際貿易組織，擁有超過150國加入該國際組織，使得組織展現出高度的文化多元性。因此，基於「人道考量」、「文化考量」及「宗教因素」是否涵蓋在公共道德及公共秩序例外的問題在該組織中也成為各國爭執不下的地方。鑑於國家及其地區皆傾向利用其貿易法律對其他國家的社會產生影響的行為，或是更進一步的主張國際習慣上的概念來正當化管制措施，如何適度主張及檢驗公共道德及公共秩序例外即為本文所欲探討的主題。首先由公共道德及公共秩序個別之解釋切入、經由WTO之解釋及檢驗適用、各國對於該例外主張之態度，最後探討對於公共道德及公共秩序例外主張可能產生之問題提出可行主張之範圍及界限，希冀建立公共道德與公共秩序例外的共通原則及適用上之可主張範圍。

Since the late 1990s, public morals and public order exceptions have increasingly drawn the attation of academica and international organizations. Unfortunatley, even though there are exceptions to public morals and public order for all countries for the maintenance of its unique social value, vague treaty provisions leave the member the right to stand for the exceptions but fail to justify its measures. Despite the fact that its scope and meaning remained unarticalated, each country continuted to look to the exceptions to justify the legality of certain acts. Moreover, more and more countries restrit trade in favor of certain forms such as cultural protection, humanitarian concerns. Therefore, should we call for a boarder reading of public morals and public order that would permit trade restrictions fostering such conserns? However, Free trade and public morals and public order exception coexist in a precarious balance. On the one hand, the international trading system was founded on the principle of nondiscrimination. Under this principle, Countries could not justify why its measures disadvantage those that fail to share their geopolitical or religious views. On the other hand, the system was also founded on the notion that countries should not be forced to liberalize trade when doing so would threaten their public morality. But how is this balance defined? As the largest international trade organization, the WTO is now more than 150 Member States also show a high degree of cultural diversity. Thus, the question of whether “humanitarian concerns”, “cultural concerns” and “religion concerns” are encompassed with public morals exception to the WTO rules remains, and, given nations and their localities' propensity to utilize their trade laws to effect social change in other countries, or, moreover, to utilize international customary as exceptions to justify the legality of their measures. How to moderate claims and inspection of public morals and public order exception is the subject of this thesis. At first, I may explore the original meanings of the public morality and oublic order. By reviewing the previous WTO Panel reports and Appellate Body reports and collatethe practices of several countries, the author tries to find out the common standards and explanations of public morality and public order exceptions.